107

International review for spatial planning and sustainable development, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

ISSN: 2187-3666 (online)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.8.1_107

Copyright@SPSD Press from 2010, SPSD Press, Kanazawa

The Characteristics of Urban Forests as Restorative

Environments with the use of the Perceived

Restorativeness Scale: focusing on the Hongneung

Experimental Forest, Seoul, South Korea

Younsun Jang1* and Yonghoon Son1 1 Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University

* Corresponding Author, Email: sonyh@snu.ac.kr

Received: Dec 4, 2017; Accepted: May 31, 2019

Key words: Psychological restorativeness, Residential area, Therapeutic space, Use

patterns

Abstract: The aim of this empirical study of Hongneung Experimental Forest (HEF) was

to determine how urban forests in residential areas are being used as

restorative environments. A survey (n = 232) based on the Perceived

Restorativeness Scale was conducted to analyse how each element of the scale

differed based on the user’s characteristics and to identify the relationship

between use patterns and psychological restorativeness. Analysis showed that

HEF played a role as a restorative environment in a residential area. The extent

of stay received the highest score (6.35), followed by being away (5.97),

fascination (5.59), and compatibility (5.47), whereas legibility (4.81) received

a relatively low score. The differences in psychological restorativeness based

on sex, age, visit frequency, and duration of stay were statistically significant.

In particular, the psychological restorativeness for housewives and the elderly

was greater than that for men. The greater the frequency of regular visits (e.g.,

1~2 times per year), the more likely the visitor will stay for approximately 3h.

In the midst of social demand for the restorative environments of urban forests

that are accessible and available in everyday life, this study is significant in

that it examined the effectiveness of urban forests as restorative environments

and presented empirical directions from the visitor’s perspective for the

planning of urban therapeutic spaces. However, there is a limit to generalizing

the psychological restorativeness of urban forests with just the HEF as an

example; therefore, future research is warranted to comparatively analyse

various spaces.

1. INTRODUCTION

Many studies have shown that the natural environment has a positive

effect on human health by promoting physical activity (Lovell, 2016),

enhancing social cohesion (Maas et al., 2009), and improving physiological

and psychological resilience (Hartig et al., 2003; Park et al., 2010). For

example, children living in inner-city neighbourhoods with larger and more

trees reported superior health-related quality of life (Kim, J.-H., Lee, &

Sohn, 2016). Based on these benefits, there is a growing interest in the

planning of natural environments to promote human health (European

108 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

Commission, 2014; World Health Organization, 2006), such as with the

“Healing Gardens” and “Therapy Forests” of the various “Prescription

Trails” throughout the USA, the “Forest Therapy” bases and roads in Japan,

and the “vitapacours” in Switzerland.

To promote human health, the Korea Forest Service has created therapy

forests to utilize the healing power of nature that are now operated at 51

sites as of 2018. These therapy forests are equipped with convenience

facilities, visitor centres, meditation spaces, and healing forest trails, first

established in 2008. The purpose of a therapy forest is to enhance the body’s

immunity and to utilize various environmental factors in the forest to

improve health. Most therapy forests are located outside of cities in natural

environments characterized by high tree density and clean air, and various

studies have shown that visiting a forest can help cure diseases and promote

health (Cho, Lee, & Kim, 2014). However, these therapy forests are not

widely available to urban residents on a daily basis; there is growing interest

in the creation of restorative environments for urban forests that are more

readily available (Kim, H. L., 2014; Kim, J.-H., Lee, & Sohn, 2016).

Visiting an urban forest has been shown to reduce stress and improve the

psychological and physiological health of urban residents to the same degree

as spending time in nature (Hartig, 2011; Hauru et al., 2012; Tzoulas et al.,

2007). Hence, active discussions continue to identify the effects of

environmental factors of urban forests on human health and wellbeing

(Carrus et al., 2013; Carrus et al., 2015; Van Den Berg, Hartig, & Staats,

2007). Examples include the effects of psychological restorativeness

(Tomao et al., 2018) depending on the forest stand structure in urban forests

and how the scenery in urban forests can maximize psychological

restorativeness (Hauru et al., 2012). In addition, Stigsdotter et al. (2017)

identified eight different perceived sensory dimensions of forest

environments in urban areas (i.e., serenity, nature, species richness, space,

prospect, and refuge, as well as social and cultural factors) associated with

the promotion of health, as described by the “Supportive-Environment

Theory.” Based on these perceived sensory dimensions, many studies have

investigated the effects of the physical environment and elements of urban

forests with the use of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of urban forests

as restorative environments and provide an empirical direction from the

user’s perspective for the planning of urban therapeutic spaces in the context

of discussions about the accessibility of urban forests in daily life. To

understand empirically how urban forests are being used as restorative

environments, this study 1) analysed how psychological restorativeness

functions in urban forests and how functions differ depending on the user’s

characteristics, and 2) assessed the characteristics of an urban forest as a

restorative environment in relation to specific restorative functions.

2. RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Restorative environments are defined as places that afford visitors the

opportunities to recover from stress and otherwise renew personal adaptive

resources needed to meet the demands of everyday life, such as the ability to

focus attention (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, 1989). The “Attention Restoration

Theory” (ART) (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, 1989) and “Psycho-Evolutionary

Theory” (Ulrich, 1983) hold that natural green environments are especially

beneficial for restoration. The ART proceeds from the idea that restorative

Jang & Son 109

environments support and enhance the recovery of diminished capacity in

directed attention through conceptual properties, especially fascination,

being away, extent, and compatibility (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, 1989; Sonntag-

Öström et al., 2014). Fascination can take place in an environment that does

not require the expenditure of mental effort and involves stimuli and

processes of exploration; being away is the feeling, either psychological or

physical, of being distant from daily routines and demands where directed

attention capacity is used; extent is the capacity of an environment to

provide for exploration and a sense of coherence, which refers to the ability

to organize and structure a scene in the environment; and compatibility is

the match between what a person wants to do, what the environment

supports, and what the person is expected to do in the environment (Kaplan,

S., 1995; Peschardt & Stigsdotter, 2013), provided that the individual’s

desires and what the environment provides are consistent (Hartig et al.,

1997; Lee, S. H. & Hyun, 2003), and the richer the four factors, the more

beneficial the restorative environment (Hartig et al., 1997).

To measure the self-perceived restorative potential of an environment,

the “Perceived Restorativeness Scale” (PRS), as introduced by Hartig et al.

(1997), is based on the four ART components and consists of a total of 16

questions that are graded with the use of a 7-point Likert scale. From a

methodological perspective, the reliability and validity of the PRS have been

confirmed in many studies (Hartig et al., 1997). For example, (Korpela &

Hartig, 1996) used the 16 questions of the PRS with the Zuckerman

Inventory of Personal Reaction Scale (ZIPERS), a measure of environmental

stress that includes evaluations of the degree of positive effects,

attentiveness, fear, and sadness based on a 5-point scale (Kim, H. L., 2014).

Furthermore, Laumann, Gärling, and Stormark (2001) used 22 items of the

Restorative Components Scale by modifying the PRS scale to five properties

of “being away,” separated into “novelty” and “escape,” although the term

“extent” was switched to “scope.” Meanwhile, Herzog, Maguire, and Nebel

(2003) proposed the use of the Perceived Restoration Potential, which is a

modification of the PRS that consists of four factors: “openness,” “visual

access,” “ease of movement,” and “setting care.” Han (2003) also studied

the restorative environment using a short version of the Revised Restoration

Scale (SRRS) that measures emotional, physiological, cognitive, and

behavioural perspectives. In 2003, Lee, S. H. and Hyun (2003) translated the

PRS into Korean and verified the usefulness of the scale through

experimentation. Unlike the existing PRS, the Korean version of the PRS

(K-PRS) consists of five properties and 26 items, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Case studies of restorativeness scales

Author Scale Properties

Korpela and Hartig

(1996)

PRS (4) Being away, fascination, coherence, compatibility

ZIPERS (5) Positive affect, sadness, attentiveness, anger/aggression,

fear arousal

Laumann, Gärling, and

Stormark (2001) RCS1) (5) Novelty, escape, scope, fascination, compatibility

Herzog, Maguire, and

Nebel (2003)

PRS (4) Being away, fascination, coherence, compatibility

PRP2) (4) Openness, visual access, movement ease, setting care

Han (2003) SRRS (4) Emotional, physiological, cognitive, behavioural

Lee, S. H. and Hyun

(2003) K-PRS (4) Repose, fascination, coherence, legibility

110 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

3. USE PATTERNS OF URBAN FORESTS

The study of one’s preferences and perceptions of natural spaces has

been emphasized for the management of urban forests and parks (Sterl,

Brandenburg, & Arnberger, 2008), and there have been on-going analyses of

the satisfaction and preference of urban forests. For example, Karanikola,

Panagopoulos, and Tampakis (2017) analysed the user’s preference and

satisfaction regarding forest management, while Paletto, Guerrini, and De

Meo (2017) analysed the user’s preference for the degree of thinning for

urban forest management. To deduce improvements to urban forests, Japelj

et al. (2016) assessed the users’ preferences of environmental elements,

while Zhai, Baran, and Wu (2018) analysed differences in visitation patterns

based on the motivation of the users using a Global Positioning System

tracking device, and Zhang and Zhou (2018) analysed social media data to

determine the effect of the location and accessibility of urban forests on

visiting patterns. Many recent studies have investigated the effectiveness

and planning of urban forests in residential areas from a therapeutic point of

view. In this respect, Lanki et al. (2017) studied the relationship between

urban green environments and human health, while Sonntag-Öström et al.

(2014) conducted comparative analysis on perceived restorativeness, mood,

attention capacity, and physiological reactions when visiting city and forest

environments.

4. METHODS

4.1 Study Site

This study was conducted in the Hongneung Experimental Forest (HEF),

located in Seoul, South Korea (Figure 1). The structure of the forest is

preserved with various species of trees within the urban area and is

acknowledged as “the first-generation arboretum” in Korea. Established in

1922, the HEF, covering 44 ha at the southwestern foot of Mt. Cheonjang

(天藏山 , 141 m), east of Seoul, was a historic site (“Hongneung” in

Korean). In the past, the grave of Empress Myeongseong was located in this

forest. The HEF consists of 12 theme gardens, including a coniferous

garden, deciduous garden, medicinal plant garden, and five forest trails: the

trail of the millennium forest, the empress’ trail, the trail of forest adventure,

the trail of Chenjangmaru, and the trail of the Munbae tree. Additionally,

since 1993, the forest has been open on Saturdays and Sundays to increase

the public’s understanding of the importance of trees and forests, attracting

210,000 visitors per year (Choi & Kim, 2015).

Figure 1. Study Site: Hongneung Experimental Forest

Jang & Son 111

4.2 Survey

In this study, a visitor survey was conducted to elucidate the relationship

between the visitor’s characteristics and psychological restorativeness of

urban forests. The survey consisted of three sections: demographic

characteristics, visit characteristics, and the PRS.

4.2.1 Demographic and visit characteristics

Variables were chosen based on earlier studies on the use patterns of the

HEF Forest (Jung, Lee, & Kang, 2014; Kim, W. H., Kim, & Moon, 2010;

Sreetheran, 2017; Yoo, 2013; Bong, 1997). The variables included the visit

purpose, visit frequency, duration of stay, type of companion, activity type,

and type of transportation. In this study, the survey consisted of questions

regarding demographic characteristics (i.e., sex, age, occupation, and

residential area), as well as seven visit characteristics (i.e., visit experience,

visit frequency, duration of stay, type and number of companions, activity

type, and visit purpose; Table 2). The survey was conducted on May 5 and

June 2, 2018 at the entrance of the HEF.

4.2.2 K-PRS (Korean version of the PRS)

To analyse the therapeutic functions of the HEF as a restorative

environment, the K-PRS, consisting of translations of the items of the PRS,

was adopted. Compared to the existing PRS, a ‘legibility’ factor was added,

and the items were reorganized by the factors in the K-PRS. The reliability

of the K-PRS has been validated. The scale added “legibility” to the 16

existing PRS items and ten new questions as measurements (Appendix 1) on

a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). “Legibility” refers to

the possibilities one perceives in an environment to maintain orientation and

to obtain a sense of the surroundings as one proceeds further (Kaplan, R. &

Kaplan, 1989). The sum of the scores of 26 questions were adopted as an

overall score of the restorative environment, where a higher score indicates

a greater perception of the restorative environment (Yoo, 2013).

4.2.3 Data analysis

Of a total of 240 submitted surveys, 232 (96.7%) were included for

analysis, as eight responses with inconsistent or missing data were excluded.

First, frequency analysis and descriptive statistics were used to determine

the demographic and use patterns. In addition, the 26 items were verified

against the results of the PRS survey through factor and reliability analyses.

Additionally, the relationships between use patterns and psychological

restorativeness with the property values of the PRS were identified using the

t-test and analysis of variance.

Table 2. Survey items

Variables Items Method

Demographic

characteristics Sex, age, occupation, residential area

Variables extracted

from the research

survey Visit

characteristics Visit experience, visit frequency, duration

of stay, type and number of companions,

112 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

activity type, visit purpose

Psychological

restorativeness

Being away, fascination, coherence,

compatibility, legibility

K-PRS

(5 properties, 26

questions)

5. RESULTS

5.1 Relationship between user characteristics and

psychological restorativeness

5.1.1 Demographic characteristics and psychological

restorativeness

The ratio of women was greater than that of men (56.9% vs. 43.1%,

respectively), while those aged 50–69 years accounted for 56% of the

visitors. For the residential area, most visitors were neighbourhood

residents, while more than 70% resided in north-eastern Seoul, which

included the neighbourhood area of the HEF. The most common

occupations of the visitors were housewives (27.2%), followed by office

workers and public officials (24.1%) (Table 3).

Regarding the relationship between demographic characteristics and

psychological restorativeness, the difference in psychological

restorativeness according to sex was statistically significant and that of

women was much higher than that of men (132.32 vs. 125.42, respectively,

p < 0.006). The psychological restorativeness according to occupation,

especially for housewives and students, was significant, as that of

housewives (137.03) was significantly greater than that of the other groups.

Additionally, regarding age, the psychological restorativeness scores of

visitors aged >50 years was greater than that of those aged 20–39 years.

Table 3. Demographic characteristics and psychological restorativeness

Variables N % Psychological

restorativeness

t-value/p-

value

F-

value/p-

value

post

test

results

Total 232 100 - - -

Sex male 100 43.1 125.42 −2.753/0.

006** t-test

female 132 56.9 132.32

Age,

years

20–29 (a) 35 15.1 118.43

10.528/

0.000**

a,b <

d,e

(Sche-

ffe

test)

30–39 (b) 36 15.5 118.86

40–49 (c) 31 13.4 127.94

50–59 (d) 58 25.0 136.64

>60 (e) 72 31.0 134.63

Resid-

ential

area

Dongdaemun-gu

(neighbourhood) 61 26.3 134.38

2.021/

0.112 - North-eastern Seoul 116 50.0 127.09

Others in Seoul 40 17.2 128.08

Outside of Seoul 15 6.5 129.67

Jang & Son 113

Occu-

pation

Employee/public

official (a) 56 24.1 128.46

6.744/

0.000**

d < e

(Sche-

ffe

test)

Professional (b) 25 10.8 127.12

Self-employed/business

(c) 38 16.4 126.08

Student (d) 29 12.5 115.38

Housewife (e) 63 27.2 137.03

Unemployed/others (f) 21 9.1 136.48

**p< 0.01

As a result of the understanding of the relationship between the attributes

of the groups that reached statistical significance through cross-tabulations,

most housewives had the highest rates of psychological restorativeness and

most were aged 50–59 years (28.8%) or 60–69 years (30.3%) (Figure 2).

Based on the results of this study and demographic characteristics, urban

forests play a very important role in the psychological restorativeness of

middle-aged women. In an earlier study, “leisure” was identified as a key

determinant of happiness and quality of life of middle-aged women (Kim,

M. S. & Han, 2006). Thus, this study identified the importance of

recreational and leisure activities in nature among middle-aged women.

5.1.2 Use patterns and psychological restorativeness

Regarding use patterns, most of the visitors had previous visit

experiences (55.6%) and usually visited once or twice a year (35.8%). The

most common purposes for the visit were nature appreciation (34.5%),

walking and exercise (28.9%), and relaxation (24.6%). Almost half (47%) of

the visitors stayed for 1–2h, followed by 2–3h (24.1%). Additionally, the

most frequent visits were mainly by two people (40.9%) with family

members or relatives (53.9%) (Table 4). Overall, 2–3 family members

visited for hiking, walking, and scenic views for about 2h, so the HEF

functions as a typical urban forest in a residential area.

Figure 2. Cross analysis of demographic characteristics

18

12.9

18

13.6

12

14.4

20

28.8

32

30.3

Male

Female

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60

Unit: %

31

18.9

15

7.6

23

11.4

15

10.6

0

47.7

16

3.8

Male

Female

Employee Professional Self-employeed

Student Housewife UnemployedUnit: %

Unit: %

114 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

Regarding the relationship with restorativeness, regular visitors were

more likely to have a sense of psychological recovery than first-time

visitors, which is in line with the findings of an earlier study (Grahn &

Stigsdotter, 2003), which reported that stress is lowered with a greater

frequency of visits. An earlier study claimed that restoration occurs over

vastly different amounts of time (Kaplan, R., Kaplan, & Ryan, 1998). In this

study, the extent of psychological restorativeness varied depending on the

duration of stay, as visitors who stayed for 3h had the highest mean score

(139.61).

Table 4. Use patterns and psychological restorativeness

Variables

n % Psychological

restorativeness

t-value/p-value

F-value/p-value

Post test results

Total 232 100 - - -

Visit

experience

Visit 129 55.6 133.03 3.350/0.001** t-test

Non-visit 132 56.9 132.32

Visit

frequency

None (a) 103 44.4 124.73

6.234/0.000**

a < b

(Scheffe

test)

Once a week

(b) 14 6.0 145.43

Once a

month (c) 45 19.4 130.53

Once or

twice a year

(d)

70 30.2 132.16

Major visit

purpose

For

appreciating

nature

80 34.5 131.28

.853/0.493 -

For a rest 57 24.6 129.75

For a walk

or exercise 67 28.9 128.94

For the

education 16 6.9 125.81

For other

reason 12 5.2 121.50

Duration of

stay, h

<1 (a) 45 19.4 122.58

7.479/0.000**

c > a,b

(Scheffe

test)

1–2 (b) 109 47.0 126.93

2–3 (c) 56 24.1 139.61

3–4 (d) 15 6.5 134.27

>4 (e) 7 3.0 117.86

Companion

type

Family and

relatives 122 52.6 131.21

1.886/0.114 -

Friends or

couple 62 26.7 127.95

Alone 36 15.5 127.28

Group (club,

community) 10 4.3 118.50

Other 2 0.9 150.00

Number of

companions

1 (alone) 36 15.5 127.28

1.189/0.315 - 2 90 38.8 127.43

3 50 21.6 133.30

>4 56 24.1 130.21

Jang & Son 115

**p < 0.01 *p < 0.05

According to Figure 3, the results of cross-tabulations with the variables

of visit experience, visit frequency, and duration of stay, which were

statistically significant, those who had previously visited had typically

visited once or twice a year (n = 70) with the most common duration of 1–

2h (n = 64). Regardless of the visit frequency, the duration of stay was

similar for 1–2h, but a number of first-time visitors stayed for only >1h (n =

27). Yoo (2013) and Hansmann, Hug, and Seeland (2007) found that a

longer stay in urban forests was associated with greater psychological

restorativeness because of the greater exposure to scenic nature (Yoo, 2013).

In this study, the longer the duration of stay, the greater the

psychological restorativeness, and in particular, a visit of 3h was identified

as the optimal retention time. However, it is not easy to generalize from only

this forest as an example, thus further in-depth studies are warranted to

discern the effect of the duration of stay.

5.2 Measuring PRS

5.2.1 Visitor’s psychological restorativeness

To test the validity of the PRS, factor and reliability analyses of each

question item were performed. Based on principle component analysis with

varimax rotation, the items were divided into five factors (e.g., total

cumulative score of the K-PRS = 71.47%). However, three items (#5:

Coming here helps me to obtain relief from unwanted demands on my

attention; #11: This place is boring; and #13: There is nothing worth looking

at here) were deleted because of low reliability. Without these three items,

factor analysis was conducted in the same way as with the existing K-PRS.

Thus, the same factors were used. To understand the reliability of the PRS

as a measurement tool, the items all have a Cronbach-α of >0.7. Thus, the

factors included for the PRS of the HEF were being away, fascination,

coherence, compatibility, and legibility (Table 5).

Table 5. Factor and reliability analyses

Ite

ms

Fasci-

nation

Being

away

Coher-

ence

Compat-

ibility

Legi-

bility

Comm-

unality

Eigen

value

Variance

explanation

(%)

Cron

bachα

7 0.794 0.134 0.008 0.186 0.204 0.725 3.653 15.884 0.886

8 0.762 0.202 0.111 0.177 0.084 0.673

Unit: %

20

12.8

15.7

53.3

48.9

45.8

20

29.8

3.01

0

8.5

7.2

6.7

0

1.2

Once a week

Once a month

Once or twice a year

<1h 1~2h 2~3h 3~4h >4hUnit: %

Figure 3. Cross analysis of use patterns

116 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

9 0.734 0.233 0.074 0.164 0.140 0.645

6 0.671 0.311 0.009 0.253 0.146 0.632

10 0.551 0.405 0.124 0.205 0.117 0.539

12 0.535 0.179 0.192 0.333 0.177 0.497

2 0.294 0.836 0.114 0.147 0.114 0.833

3.426 14.896 0.906 1 0.206 0.827 0.098 0.210 0.084 0.786

4 0.257 0.760 0.194 0.197 0.151 0.743

3 0.329 0.721 0.086 0.276 0.143 0.733

16 0.118 0.135 0.906 0.072 0.025 0.859

3.198 13.906 0.899 15 0.075 0.087 0.896 0.073 0.033 0.822

14 0.121 0.042 0.847 0.017 0.017 0.734

17 −0.014 0.137 0.821 0.056 0.059 0.699

20 0.305 0.172 0.006 0.784 0.269 0.811

3.173 13.798 0.880

19 0.226 0.119 0.033 0.778 0.217 0.719

22 0.372 0.191 0.062 0.734 0.226 0.768

21 0.277 0.364 0.152 0.642 0.195 0.682

18 0.083 0.466 0.096 0.622 −0.00

7 0.620

25 0.055 0.151 0.071 0.129 0.869 0.802

2.988 12.990 0.863 26 0.121 0.194 0.052 0.146 0.834 0.772

24 0.176 0.060 −0.008 0.167 0.827 0.746

23 0.333 −0.004 0.035 0.216 0.665 0.600

Duration of stay had the highest score (6.35), followed by being away

(5.97), fascination (5.59), and compatibility (5.47), while legibility (4.81)

had a relatively low score (Table 6).

Visitors achieved a sense of psychological restorativeness because the

urban environment is a very calm and quiet place upon entering [extent].

Visitors also experienced psychological restorativeness by taking a break

from their daily routines and being absorbed in nature [being away]. In

addition, the attention of the visitors is drawn to many interesting things,

such as admiring the landscape [fascination]. However, the score of

“legibility” was low, suggesting that it is necessary to develop suitable

facilities and guidance programs.

Table 6. K-PRS Mean and SD

Factor Questionnaire Factor loading

Mean SD

Fascination

7 My attention is drawn to

many interesting things. 0.794 5.41

5.59

1.457

8 I would like to get to know

this place better. 0.762 5.55 1.367

9 There is much to explore

and discover here. 0.734 5.52 1.393

6 This place has fascinating

qualities. 0.671 5.63 1.289

10

I would like to spend more

time looking at the

surroundings.

0.551 5.92 1.187

12 The setting is fascinating. 0.535 5.49 1.453

Being away 2 Spending time here gives me

a good break from my day-0.836 6.00 5.97 1.181

Jang & Son 117

to-day routine.

1 Being here is an escape

experience. 0.827 6.08 1.185

4

Being here helps me to relax

my focus on getting things

done.

0.760 6.10 1.106

3 It is a place to get away from

it all. 0.721 5.70 1.304

Coherence

16 There is a great deal of

distraction. (reverse) 0.869 6.41

6.35

0.971

15 It is a confusing place.

(reverse) 0.834 6.34 1.081

14 There is too much going on.

(reverse) 0.827 6.31 1.120

17 It is chaotic here. (reverse) 0.665 6.34 1.151

Compatibility

20 I have a sense that I belong

here. 0.784 5.17

5.47

1.475

19 I can do things I like here. 0.778 5.16 1.569

22 I have a sense of oneness

with this setting. 0.734 5.46 1.410

21 I could find ways to enjoy

myself in a place like this. 0.642 5.82 1.198

18 Being here suits my

personality. 0.622 5.73 1.408

Legibility

25 It is easy to find my way

around here. 0.869 4.83

4.81

1.771

26 It is easy to see how things

are organized. 0.834 5.05 1.570

24 I could easily form a mental

map of this place. 0.827 4.49 1.814

23 There are landmarks to help

me get around. 0.665 4.86 1.631

5.2.2 Psychological restorativeness depending on visit frequency

and duration of stay

Depending on the visit frequency, regular visitors achieved greater

psychological restorativeness than the first-time visitors (Table 7). The four

factors of the PRS (i.e., fascination, being away, compatibility, and

legibility) showed distinction. The greater the visit frequency, the more

easily the visitor appreciated the space [legibility]. Additionally, regular

visitors gave high marks to the “fascination” factor, suggesting that the

greater the visit frequency, the more visitors wish to explore and discover

nature. The visitors continue to visit because it is well-matched between

what an individual wants to do and what the environment provides (Hartig et

al., 1997) [compatibility]. It is understood that psychological restorativeness

increases in the process of feeling the attraction of nature and satisfying

one’s desire to explore the forest. Urban forests are relatively accessible, as

compared to therapy forests, which are located outside of cities in Korea. To

enhance the effectiveness of urban forests as restorative environments, it is

118 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

necessary to continue providing visitor opportunities through the

development of programs that encourage regular visits.

Table 7. Psychological restorativeness based on visit frequency

Variables Visit frequency Mean SD F-value/p-value Post test

results

Fascination

None (a) 31.94 6.176

4.191/0.007**

a < b

(Scheffe

test)

Once a week (b) 37.27 4.682

Once a month

(c) 33.85 6.450

Once or twice

(d) 34.29 6.273

Being away

None (a) 23.14 4.121

2.812/0.040* -

Once a week (b) 26.27 2.890

Once a month

(c) 23.77 4.488

Once or twice

(d) 24.28 4.235

Coherence

None (a) 24.97 4.241

1.047/0.372 -

Once a week (b) 26.27 1.870

Once a month

(c) 25.15 4.433

Once or twice

(d) 25.82 3.089

Compatibility

None (a) 25.94 5.993

3.644/0.013*

a < b

(Scheffe

test)

Once a week (b) 30.47 5.027

Once a month

(c) 27.74 6.099

Once or twice

(d) 27.99 5.336

Legibility

None (a) 17.55 5.784

8.053/0.000**

a < b > c,d

(Scheffe

test)

Once a week (b) 23.80 5.348

Once a month

(c) 21.11 5.134

Once or twice

(d) 19.11 5.356

**p < 0.01 *p < 0.05

Next, the study found that psychological restorativeness differed with the

duration of stay. In the case of urban forests, a duration of stay of 3h was the

most appropriate time for visitors to enjoy various activities and to

appreciate the fascination of the forest. In particular, there were differences

in the factors of fascination, being away, and compatibility (Table 8). The

duration of stay factor had an immediate effect due to the contrast in

environmental change, fascination, being away, and compatibility. Together,

these factors were associated with an increased restorative effect through

activities in the forest. An optimal activity time in consideration of the

restorative effect is very important in the planning of urban forests; thus,

further research is needed to validate these results.

Jang & Son 119

Table 8. Psychological restorativeness according to duration of stay

Variables Duration of stay,

h Mean SD F-value/p-value

Post test results

Fascination

<1 (a) 31.47 6.309

6.730/0.000**

c < a,b,e

(Scheffe

test)

1–2 (b) 32.90 6.175

2–3 (c) 36.71 5.228

3–4 (d) 34.40 5.124

>4 (e) 28.71 9.069

Being away

<1 (a) 22.40 4.484

5.340/0.000**

c > a,b

(Scheffe

test)

1–2 (b) 23.39 4.517

2–3 (c) 25.73 2.825

3–4 (d) 25.33 3.200

>4 (e) 23.00 4.000

Coherence

<1 (a) 24.13 3.859

2.382/0.052 -

1–2 (b) 25.32 3.649

2–3 (c) 26.14 4.078

3–4 (d) 26.00 3.566

>4 (e) 27.29 1.113

Compatibility

<1 (a) 26.11 4.955

8.589/0.000**

c > a,b,d,e

(Scheffe

test)

1–2 (b) 26.53 5.923

2–3 (c) 30.25 4.333

3–4 (d) 29.27 5.120

>4 (e) 20.14 9.547

Legibility

<1 (a) 18.47 5.337

1.396/0.236 -

1–2 (b) 18.79 5.777

2–3 (c) 20.77 5.853

3–4 (d) 19.27 5.663

>4 (e) 18.71 5.707

**p < 0.01 *p < 0.05

6. DISCUSSION

The aim of this empirical study of the HEF was to determine how urban forests in residential areas are being used as restorative environments.

It also identified differences in psychological restorativeness based on the

visitors’ characteristics.

Extent of stay received the highest score (6.35), followed by being away

(5.97), fascination (5.59), and compatibility (5.47), while that of legibility

(4.81) was relatively low. In relation to the extent of stay, visitors reported

that the greatest psychological restorativeness was due to the very calm and

quiet space of the HEF, even though the forest is located in the middle of the

city with adjoining roads. However, regarding “legibility,” visitors reported

psychological fatigue because of the difficulty in navigating the HEF.

The differences in psychological restorativeness according to sex, age,

visit frequency, and duration of stay were statistically significant. In

particular, the psychological restorativeness for housewives and the elderly

120 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

was greater than that of men, and with a regular frequency of visitation of 1–

2 times per year, with a duration of stay of about 3h.

The HEF is a restorative environment in a residential area that offers an

important therapeutic space, especially for housewives (Lee, H. J. et al.,

2019). Middle-aged women reported stress associated with the negative

social perception that full-time housewives are worthless and

unprofessional. Additionally, the menopausal symptoms of loss, conflict,

and crisis start to occur, which can influence physical and psychological

changes (Stewart & Ostrove, 1998). To overcome these negative attributes,

the female responders reported a desire to engage in activities to improve

health and happiness with the goals of time management and personal

growth. In the case of Koreans, they continued to participate in the Forest

Experience Program to meet their needs (Kim, B. S., Kim, & Lee, 2013).

Additionally, regular visitation was correlated with a better therapeutic

effect. Also, continuous visits to urban green spaces can reduce the

frequency of negative emotions and increase the opportunity for positive

emotions, leading to a feeling of happiness in daily life (Hong et al., 2019).

As restorative environments, urban forests should provide opportunities for

continuous visits by developing regular programs and attractive contents.

Furthermore, in earlier studies, “being away” was identified as the most

important factor prompting visits to the HEF. However, the factors of extent

of stay, fascination, and compatibility also received high scores. These

restorative characteristics of urban forests are generally different from those

of typical forests.

The results showed that a stay of 3h was the most suitable amount of

time to experience the fascination of the forest and take a break from daily

life, which was one of the most significant results of this study, in

accordance with the results of the earlier studies that a longer duration of

stay is associated with superior psychological restorativeness (Yoo, 2013).

To maximize psychological restorativeness, it is necessary to develop 3h

trails and to diversify programs. However, further research is needed to

objectively support a suitable duration of stay.

In the midst of social demand for the restorative environments of urban

forests that are accessible and available during everyday life, this study is

significant in that it examined the effectiveness of urban forests as

restorative environments and presented empirical directions from the

visitor’s perspective for the planning of urban therapeutic spaces. However,

there is a limit to generalizing the psychological restorativeness of urban

forests with just the HEF as an example, thus future research is warranted to

comparatively analyse various spaces.

REFERENCES

Bong, W. I. (1997). "Analysis of Users Behavior and Satisfaction at the Neighborhood Parks

in Bundang, Ilsan, Pyongchon Area". (Master Thesis), Yonsei University.

Carrus, G., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Dentamaro, I., Scopelliti, M., & Sanesi, G. (2013).

"Relations between Naturalness and Perceived Restorativeness of Different Urban Green

Spaces". Psyecology, 4(3), 227-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1174/217119713807749869.

Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., . . . Sanesi,

G. (2015). "Go Greener, Feel Better? The Positive Effects of Biodiversity on the Well-

Being of Individuals Visiting Urban and Peri-Urban Green Areas". Landscape and Urban

Planning, 134, 221-228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022.

Cho, T.-H., Lee, Y., & Kim, S.-M. (2014). "The Economic Spillover Effects of Forest

Therapy Projects in Korea". Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science, 103(4), 630-638.

doi: https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2014.103.4.630.

Jang & Son 121

Choi, G. Y., & Kim, T. (2015). "A Study on the Management Plan of Hongneung Forest

Based on Visitor Monitoring". Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science, 104(3), 443-

453. doi: https://doi.org/10.14578/jkfs.2015.104.3.443.

Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). "Landscape Planning and Stress". Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 2(1), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019.

Han, K.-T. (2003). "A Reliable and Valid Self-Rating Measure of the Restorative Quality of

Natural Environments". Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 209-232. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00241-4.

Hansmann, R., Hug, S.-M., & Seeland, K. (2007). "Restoration and Stress Relief through

Physical Activities in Forests and Parks". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 213-

225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004.

Hartig, T. (2011). "Issues in Restorative Environments Research: Matters of Measurement".

Environmental Psychology 2011: Between Urban Studies and the Analysis of

Sustainability and Global Change, 41-66.

Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). "Tracking

Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings". Journal of Environmental Psychology,

23(2), 109-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3.

Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). "A Measure of Restorative

Quality in Environments". Scandinavian housing and planning research, 14(4), 175-194.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435.

Hauru, K., Lehvävirta, S., Korpela, K., & Kotze, D. J. (2012). "Closure of View to the Urban

Matrix Has Positive Effects on Perceived Restorativeness in Urban Forests in Helsinki,

Finland". Landscape and urban planning, 107(4), 361-369. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.002.

Herzog, T. R., Maguire, P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). "Assessing the Restorative Components

of Environments". Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5.

Hong, S.-K., Lee, S.-W., Jo, H.-K., & Yoo, M. (2019). "Impact of Frequency of Visits and

Time Spent in Urban Green Space on Subjective Well-Being". Sustainability, 11(15),

4189. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154189.

Japelj, A., Mavsar, R., Hodges, D., Kovač, M., & Juvančič, L. (2016). "Latent Preferences of

Residents Regarding an Urban Forest Recreation Setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia". Forest

policy and economics, 71, 71-79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.003.

Jung, S.-G., Lee, S.-G., & Kang, D.-H. (2014). "A Study on User Behavior and Satisfaction

with Neighborhood Parks within Walking Distance with Consideration for Interior and

Exterior Environments-Focusing on the Case Study Hwarang and Gwanum Park, Daegu".

Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 42(5), 110-123. doi:

https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.5.110.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. (1998). With People in Mind: Design and Management of

Everyday Nature. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Kaplan, S. (1995). "The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework".

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-

4944(95)90001-2.

Karanikola, P., Panagopoulos, T., & Tampakis, S. (2017). "Weekend Visitors' Views and

Perceptions at an Urban National Forest Park of Cyprus During Summertime". Journal of

outdoor recreation and tourism, 17, 112-121. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.10.002.

Kim, B. S., Kim, H. Y., & Lee, S. J. (2013). "The Effect of Forest Experiences on Happiness

and Positive Psychology of Korean Middle-Aged Women in Seoul and the Surrounding

Metropolitan Cities". The Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation, 17(3), 65-73.

doi: https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2013.17.3.008.

Kim, H. L. (2014). "The Understanding of Urban Forest Therapy Activity of Patients with

Cancer through the Biographical Research". The Journal of Korean Institute of Forest

Recreation, 18(1), 127-136. doi: https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2014.18.1.011.

Kim, J.-H., Lee, C., & Sohn, W. (2016). "Urban Natural Environments, Obesity, and Health-

Related Quality of Life among Hispanic Children Living in Inner-City Neighborhoods".

International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(1), 121. doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010121.

Kim, M. S., & Han, Y. S. (2006). "Quality of Life and Happiness of Middle Aged Women".

Journal of Korean Psychology, 2006(1), 204–205.

122 IRSPSD International, Vol.8 No.1 (2020), 107-123

Kim, W. H., Kim, Y. H., & Moon, D. I. (2010). "A Study on the Use and Satisfaction Factor

with Urban Park-Focused on Neighborhood Park in Gwangju". Journal of the Regional

Association of Architectural Institute of Korea, 12(1), 115-122.

Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). "Restorative Qualities of Favorite Places". Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221-233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0018.

Lanki, T., Siponen, T., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Pennanen, A., Tiittanen, P., . . . Tyrvainen, L.

(2017). "Acute Effects of Visits to Urban Green Environments on Cardiovascular

Physiology in Women: A Field Experiment". Environ Res, 159, 176-185. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.039.

Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. (2001). "Rating Scale Measures of Restorative

Components of Environment". Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 31-44. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0179.

Lee, H. J., Son, Y.-H., Kim, S., & Lee, D. K. (2019). "Healing Experiences of Middle-Aged

Women through an Urban Forest Therapy Program". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,

38, 383-391. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.017.

Lee, S. H., & Hyun, M. H. (2003). "The Factor Structure of the Korean Version of the

Perceived Restorativeness Scale (Prs)". Korean Journal of Health Psychology, 8(2), 229–

241.

Lovell, R. (2016). Links between Natural Environments and Physical Activity: Evidence

Briefing. Exeter: Natural England.

Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). "Social Contacts

as a Possible Mechanism Behind the Relation between Green Space and Health". Health &

place, 15(2), 586-595. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006.

Paletto, A., Guerrini, S., & De Meo, I. (2017). "Exploring Visitors' Perceptions of

Silvicultural Treatments to Increase the Destination Attractiveness of Peri-Urban Forests:

A Case Study in Tuscany Region (Italy)". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27, 314-

323. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.020.

Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2010). "The

Physiological Effects of Shinrin-Yoku (Taking in the Forest Atmosphere or Forest

Bathing): Evidence from Field Experiments in 24 Forests across Japan". Environmental

Health and Preventive Medicin, 15(1), 18-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-009-

0086-9.

Peschardt, K. K., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). "Associations between Park Characteristics and

Perceived Restorativeness of Small Public Urban Green Spaces". Landscape and Urban

Planning, 112, 26-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013.

Sonntag-Öström, E., Nordin, M., Lundell, Y., Dolling, A., Wiklund, U., Karlsson, M., . . .

Slunga Järvholm, L. (2014). "Restorative Effects of Visits to Urban and Forest

Environments in Patients with Exhaustion Disorder". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,

13(2), 344-354. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.12.007.

Sreetheran, M. (2017). "Exploring the Urban Park Use, Preference and Behaviours among the

Residents of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia". Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 85-93.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.003.

Sterl, P., Brandenburg, C., & Arnberger, A. (2008). "Visitors’ Awareness and Assessment of

Recreational Disturbance of Wildlife in the Donau-Auen National Park". Journal for

Nature Conservation, 16(3), 135-145. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.06.001.

Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (1998). "Women's Personality in Middle Age: Gender,

History, and Midcourse Corrections". American Psychologist, 53(11), 1185-1194. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.11.1185.

Stigsdotter, U. K., Corazon, S. S., Sidenius, U., Refshauge, A. D., & Grahn, P. (2017).

"Forest Design for Mental Health Promotion—Using Perceived Sensory Dimensions to

Elicit Restorative Responses". Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 1-15. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.012.

Tomao, A., Secondi, L., Carrus, G., Corona, P., Portoghesi, L., & Agrimi, M. (2018).

"Restorative Urban Forests: Exploring the Relationships between Forest Stand Structure,

Perceived Restorativeness and Benefits Gained by Visitors to Coastal Pinus Pinea

Forests". Ecological Indicators, 90, 594-605. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.051.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James,

P. (2007). "Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green

Infrastructure: A Literature Review". Landscape and urban planning, 81(3), 167-178. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.

Jang & Son 123

Ulrich, R. (1983). "Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment". Human

Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85-125. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4.

Van Den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). "Preference for Nature in Urbanized

Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability". Journal of social issues,

63(1), 79-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x.

Yoo, Y. H. (2013). "The Comparison of Prs (Perceived Restorativeness Scale) on Types of

Urban Forest". Journal of Forest Recreation, 17(1), 33–45.

Zhai, Y., Baran, P. K., & Wu, C. (2018). "Spatial Distributions and Use Patterns of User

Groups in Urban Forest Parks: An Examination Utilizing Gps Tracker". Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 35, 32-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.014.

Zhang, S., & Zhou, W. (2018). "Recreational Visits to Urban Parks and Factors Affecting

Park Visits: Evidence from Geotagged Social Media Data". Landscape and urban

planning, 180, 27-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.004.

APPENDIX: K-PRS

Factor Questionnaire

Being away

1 Being here is an escape experience.

2 Spending time here gives me a break from my day-to-day routine.

3 It is a place to get away from it all.

4 Being here helps me to relax my focus on getting things done.

5 Coming here helps me to get relief from unwanted demands on my attention.

Fascination

6 This place has fascinating qualities.

7 My attention is drawn to many interesting things.

8 I want to get to know this place better.

9 There is too much to explore and discover here.

10 I want to spend more time looking at the surroundings.

11 This place is boring. (reverse)

12 The setting is fascinating.

13 There is nothing worth looking at here. (reverse)

Coherence

14 There is too much going on. (reverse)

15 It is a confusing place. (reverse)

16 There is a great deal of distraction. (reverse)

17 It is chaotic here. (reverse)

Compatibility

18 Being here suits my personality.

19 I can do things I like here.

20 I have a sense that I belong here.

21 I can find ways to enjoy myself here.

22 I have a sense of oneness with this setting.

Legibility

23 There are landmarks to help me get around.

24 I could easily form a mental map of this place.

25 It is easy to find my way around here.

26 It is easy to see how things are organized.